Paul Derouda wrote:As for the optative and subjunctive, when to use which, etc... Those are quite a bit more complicated (at least for me). I think for many people (like for me) it's so complicated that the best approach is just to keep reading Greek until you get it instinctively. Every language language has this kind of illogical stuff you just have to get around somehow; when it's your native language, you just don't notice it.

Here is a contemporary sample of translating the “4th class conditional [1]”

“I would feel same before Agamemnon **if I touched what I had no right to.”

Notice the simplicity of the **protasis. There are no hedge words, no paraphrasing to emphasize the improbable nature of the scenario presented for consideration.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

[1]According to the customary classification “4th class conditional” has optatives in both the protasis and the apodosis. The protasis has EI + optative. The apodosis AN + optative or something else. This was considered intermediate New Testament Greek 20 years ago, found in two intermediate grammars, S .E. Porter:1992 page 263, R. A. Young:1994 page 227.

Perhaps you meant to quote my post from that thread?If the "improbability" aspect was the focus here.

See, this is the kind of condition where the protasis is consideredless likely to to be true and the apodosis even unlikelier, the "less vivid" condition.Your translation would fit into the "more vivid" one, ἐὰν + subj. » fut. ind. The speakerwants to avoid death and does not think he/she deserves it, and so he/she frames it on theoff-chance he/she wouldn't be able to avoid it.

I only regurgitated what I had been fed in class. That there's always a differencebetween the subjunctive and optative in conditional sentences, and that the formeris more probable, the latter only possible, as Smyth notes in 2322, yetthe following statement was never introduced in class (granted, I didn't stick aroundmore than a year to find out):

The same thought may often be expressed in either form without any essential difference in meaning. The only difference is, therefore, often that of temperament, tone, or style.

That said, Smyth usually translated such conditionals in should/(were to)...would (2329 ff.), and David Kovacs' translation suggests that sense of mere possibility as well.

If your focus is on the English words used to translate it: it's worth considering that English has changed a lot since Smyth and these other grammar books were written. "Should/would" was the standard phraseology at that time; these days, most people express the same idea by saying, "If I did X" or "If I were to do X." (Note that "If I did X" is ambiguous by itself; it could refer to either the past or the hypothetical future, but context almost always makes it clear.) These days, I think "should/would" is confined mostly to formal or written English. There area also differences between American and British usage.

NateD26 wrote:Perhaps you meant to quote my post from that thread?If the "improbability" aspect was the focus here.

See, this is the kind of condition where the protasis is consideredless likely to to be true and the apodosis even unlikelier, the "less vivid" condition.Your translation would fit into the "more vivid" one, ἐὰν + subj. » fut. ind. The speakerwants to avoid death and does not think he/she deserves it, and so he/she frames it on theoff-chance he/she wouldn't be able to avoid it.

I only regurgitated what I had been fed in class. That there's always a differencebetween the subjunctive and optative in conditional sentences, and that the formeris more probable, the latter only possible, as Smyth notes in 2322, yetthe following statement was never introduced in class (granted, I didn't stick aroundmore than a year to find out):

The same thought may often be expressed in either form without any essential difference in meaning. The only difference is, therefore, often that of temperament, tone, or style.

That said, Smyth usually translated such conditionals in should/(were to)...would (2329 ff.), and David Kovacs' translation suggests that sense of mere possibility as well.

Yes your post started me thinking about this. Contemporary English struggles a little bit with the greek optative. I looked at how a dozen English translations handled the protasis in 1 Peter 3:14 and saw that most of them included a word or two specifically indented to represent the optative. Often grammars will “over translate” for the purpose of illustrating the meaning of the original, for example Richard A. Young (Intermediate NT Greek 1994, page 227) which renders 1Pet. 3:14a “if perchance you should happen to suffer on account of righteousness ...” but see in contrast S. E. Porter (Idioms of NT Greek 1992, page 263) “if you suffer because of righteousness ...” which is a minimalist approach. Both Porter and Young are linguistically informed grammarians. Young’s rendering is perhaps useful for making the student pay attention to the optative. Porter on the other hand flattens it out.

Damoetas wrote:If your focus is on the English words used to translate it: it's worth considering that English has changed a lot since Smyth and these other grammar books were written. "Should/would" was the standard phraseology at that time; these days, most people express the same idea by saying, "If I did X" or "If I were to do X." (Note that "If I did X" is ambiguous by itself; it could refer to either the past or the hypothetical future, but context almost always makes it clear.) These days, I think "should/would" is confined mostly to formal or written English. There area also differences between American and British usage.

Damoetas wrote:If your focus is on the English words used to translate it: it's worth considering that English has changed a lot since Smyth and these other grammar books were written. "Should/would" was the standard phraseology at that time; these days, most people express the same idea by saying, "If I did X" or "If I were to do X." (Note that "If I did X" is ambiguous by itself; it could refer to either the past or the hypothetical future, but context almost always makes it clear.) These days, I think "should/would" is confined mostly to formal or written English. There area also differences between American and British usage.

Thank you Damoetas,

I agree. Things have changed since Smyth. Let's see how R. C. Jebb (Elizabethan ?) version handles the 4th class conditional.

Soph. Ajax 1122Μέγ' ἄν τι κομπάσειας, ἀσπίδ' εἰ λάβοις.

R. C. Jebb print edition:

“How thou wouldst boast, wert thou given a shield!”

R. C. Jebb Perseus modernization:

“How you would boast, if you had a shield!”

and compare John Moore half a century after Jebb:

“Think how he’d boast if he wore a warrior’s armor!”

At first glance, none of these renderings appear to highlight the distinctive character of the optative in the protasis. However, I am not sure if “wert” more specifically represents εἰ + optative than “If you were.” Jebb’s version does include “would” in the apodosis which perhaps casts an optative shadow over the protasis as well. Not sure about this.

John Moore’s translation contracts “he would boast” to “he’d boast” in the apodosis which reduces the salience of “would” somewhat. Again, no explicit encoding optative in the protasis.

I don’t have any contemporary versions on hand. Jebb’s archaic rendering isn’t even close to the hyper explicit rendering of optative in R. A. Young’s 1Pet. 3:14a:

1Pet. 3:14a “if perchance you should happen to suffer on account of righteousness ...”

It is to you she has been speaking and clearly. Since you are in the toils of destiny, perhaps you will obey, if you are so inclined; but perhaps you will not.

H. W. Smyth, Ph. D., 1926

Here Smyth highlights the optative in apodosis “perhaps you will obey” and the protasis is a simple conditional clause “if you are so inclined.” He underlines the optative flavor by repetition of “perhaps” in the last clause.

Wow, thanks for assembling all those quotations, looks like a lot of work! At several places in your posts, I see that you made comments like, "At first glance, none of these renderings appear to highlight the distinctive character of the optative in the protasis." Or, "He underlines the optative flavor by repetition of 'perhaps' in the last clause." Might I suggest a different way of approaching this? I think it's more illuminating to ask, "How did Greek speakers talk about hypothetical conditions in the future which they were presenting as relatively unlikely to occur?" And, "How do English speakers talk about the same types of situations?" Because, the construction needs to be viewed as a whole; it's not very fruitful to talk about the contribution of any particular word or even mood, in and of itself.

In regards to the original poster's question, it is worthwhile to note that in the optative was going out of use in Koine Greek, so any instance of it is highly "marked." The author of 1 Peter may have been stressing the unlikelyness of the situation; he may have employed the optative as a stylistic feature. However the case may be, I'm not sure it's possible to convey the same nuance in an English translation.

The entire sentence is hypothetical, and perhaps this was one of the reasons for using exclusively the optative mood. That hypothetical tone would have been lost by using any other mood.

Notice in the first line the use of articular infinitive, essentially functioning as the protasisof Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην. Notice as well that in the attached qualitative relative clausea participle replaces a similar protasis of εἰ + opt.

Also, the persistent use of the optative in the apodosis of the second part of the sentence, with the repetition of ἂν in both clauses, as well as foregoing using the stronger, factual οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις οὐκ, conveys that same sense of hypothetical statement.

Whether or not it is possible to stay true to the original meaning in translating itinto any language is a valid question, but any sort of translating is ultimately an approximationand what I do right now, writing in a language that is not my native tongue and translating my thoughts from Hebrew (although I often do find myself thinking in English ) is alsoan approximation, with any nuances and intonation present in my native tongue gone.

I should be only too pleased, sirs, to have you so disposed towards me in judging this case as you would be to yourselves, if you found yourselves in my plight. For I am sure that,if you had the same feelings about others as about yourselves, not one of you but would be indignant at what has been done; you would all regard the penalties appointed for those who resort to such practices as too mild.

Damoetas wrote:At several places in your posts, I see that you made comments like, "At first glance, none of these renderings appear to highlight the distinctive character of the optative in the protasis." Or, "He underlines the optative flavor by repetition of 'perhaps' in the last clause." Might I suggest a different way of approaching this? I think it's more illuminating to ask, "How did Greek speakers talk about hypothetical conditions in the future which they were presenting as relatively unlikely to occur?" And, "How do English speakers talk about the same types of situations?" Because, the construction needs to be viewed as a whole; it's not very fruitful to talk about the contribution of any particular word or even mood, in and of itself.

I agree in part, but the optative makes a contribution here and it think it is useful to try and isolate that contribution even though the total picture involves other elements.

In regards to the original poster's question, it is worthwhile to note that in the optative was going out of use in Koine Greek, so any instance of it is highly "marked." The author of 1 Peter may have been stressing the unlikelyness of the situation; he may have employed the optative as a stylistic feature. However the case may be, I'm not sure it's possible to convey the same nuance in an English translation.

I agree that εἰ + optative is marked in Koine Greek, but marked for what? R. A. Young’s[1] rendering of 1Pet. 3:14a “if perchance you should happen to suffer on account of righteousness ...” is also marked by the use of “perchance ... should happen to” it doesn’t necessarily follow that the greek and english are marked for the same thing.

Damoetas wrote:At several places in your posts, I see that you made comments like, "At first glance, none of these renderings appear to highlight the distinctive character of the optative in the protasis." Or, "He underlines the optative flavor by repetition of 'perhaps' in the last clause." Might I suggest a different way of approaching this? I think it's more illuminating to ask, "How did Greek speakers talk about hypothetical conditions in the future which they were presenting as relatively unlikely to occur?" And, "How do English speakers talk about the same types of situations?" Because, the construction needs to be viewed as a whole; it's not very fruitful to talk about the contribution of any particular word or even mood, in and of itself.

Taking a second look at this, I really don't understand the objection. The optative in isolation is not being discussed. The “4th class conditional” is a complex pattern, not an isolated optative. The pattern isn't fixed, generally it is εἰ + optative in the protasis and a number of options in the apodosis. The prototype is ἄν + optative. In the following example we see a variation which departs slightly from the prototype.

Soph. Ajax 167-171

τάχ' ἄν, ἐξαίφνης εἰ σὺ φανείης,σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι.

Jebb modernized:perhaps, if you should appear, they would quickly cower without voice in silence.

John Moore:If you should only appear,would make them cower and be still.

τάχ' ἄν functions as a marker of a hypothetical scenario. εἰ σὺ φανείης is the protasis and σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι the apodosis.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:τάχ' ἄν functions as a marker of a hypothetical scenario. εἰ σὺ φανείης is the protasis and σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι the apodosis.

Hi, Stirling. Do you read τάχ' ἄν as completely isolated, as phrases like ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, from the apodosis?Smyth does include this phrase under ἄν without a Verb.There are some cases where ἄν would be repeated, but perhaps the potential force in τάχ' ἄνwas still present in σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι and there was no need for repetition.

Here is a case where Plato had been rather generous and repeated ἄν with each circumstantial participle as well as with the finite verb. Not only that, the potential/hypothetical force of τάχ᾽ ἂν was apparently not enough he'd included ἵσως for good measure.

You, perhaps, being annoyed, like those half-asleep men when they are awakened, would strike at me, [and], believing Anytus, might rashly kill me; then, in your remaining life,you would persist in your slumber, unless god should send you someone else to wake you from it.

The entire sentence is hypothetical, and perhaps this was one of the reasons for using exclusively the optative mood. That hypothetical tone would have been lost by using any other mood.

Notice in the first line the use of articular infinitive, essentially functioning as the protasisof Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην. Notice as well that in the attached qualitative relative clausea participle replaces a similar protasis of εἰ + opt.

Also, the persistent use of the optative in the apodosis of the second part of the sentence, with the repetition of ἂν in both clauses, as well as foregoing using the stronger, factual οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις οὐκ, conveys that same sense of hypothetical statement.

Nate,

I found a more recent and more helpful translation:

I would be very grateful, gentlemen, if you, the jurymen in this case, judged me as you would judge yourselves, were you to go through the same sort of experience. For I am well aware that if you employed the same standards for others as you do for your own behaviour, there is not a single one of you who would not be furious at what has happened. In fact, all of you would consider the penalties light for those who practise such things. — Caroline L. Falkner 2001

That is a long sentence and the syntax is complex. I don't see any infinitive on the first line, I assume you are referring to γενέσθαι at the end of line 2. If we take τὸ on line one with γενέσθαι, then perhaps everything in between could be considered part of the infinitive complex. If we read the opening Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην as an apodosis, then the protasis needs to be found somewhere prior to εὖ γὰρ οἶδ' ὅτι at the beginning of line four.

Your suggestion that infinitive is “essentially functioning as the protasis” sounds right to me, however the syntax structure between τὸ and the infinitive isn’t obvious. δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος looks like a complex adjectival constituent limiting ὑμᾶς. But the placement of ἐμοὶ makes me wonder if this right. τοιούτους could be joined with δικαστὰς which might require a different analysis. I am somewhat undecided about the syntax analysis.

On the question of the hypothetical nature of the discourse, I don’t know enough about the text to comment on this. Here is what Caroline L. Falkner had to say about it.

This short speech has attracted a great deal of interest as much for its author's skilful presentation of argument and character, as for its details of Athenian law and life.Euphiletos stands accused of the murder of Eratosthenes, his wife's lover. According to Athenian law, if a husband caught his wife's lover in the act of adultery, he could either kill him or demand financial compensation. The latter had become the more common type of settlement at Athens. Euphiletos found Eratosthenes with his wife and killed him in front of witnesses. He now has to prove that the killing was not premeditated murder, as Eratosthenes' family has claimed, but both legal and understandable. To do this he must present himself as a credible character with a convincing account of events. Euphiletos appears honest, hard working, and perhaps a little gullible, in short, an ordinary Athenian with whom a jury of other, ordinary Athenians could be expected to sympathize.— Caroline L. Falkner 2001

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:τάχ' ἄν functions as a marker of a hypothetical scenario. εἰ σὺ φανείης is the protasis and σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι the apodosis.

Hi, Stirling. Do you read τάχ' ἄν as completely isolated, as phrases like ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, from the apodosis?Smyth does include this phrase under ἄν without a Verb.There are some cases where ἄν would be repeated, but perhaps the potential force in τάχ' ἄνwas still present in σιγῇ πτήξειαν ἄφωνοι and there was no need for repetition.

Here is a case where Plato had been rather generous and repeated ἄν with each circumstantial participle as well as with the finite verb. Not only that, the potential/hypothetical force of τάχ᾽ ἂν was apparently not enough he'd included ἵσως for good measure.

You, perhaps, being annoyed, like those half-asleep men when they are awakened, would strike at me, [and], believing Anytus, might rashly kill me; then, in your remaining life,you would persist in your slumber, unless god should send you someone else to wake you from it.

Nate,

On the question is τάχ' ἄν completely isolated from the syntax of the following clause, I am not sure what complete isolation would look like. I don't consider initial adverbs completely isolated, any more than I would consider a genitive absolute isolated. If τάχ' ἄν marks the conditional/hypothetical nature of the following structure then its absence will be felt and thus it isn't really isolated. Some folks using some variant of the early-Chomsky framework might claim we have a complete sentence or clause without τάχ' ἄν but I don't hang out with folks who say those sorts of things. We may not have a perfect example (prototype) of a "fourth class conditional" with τάχ' ἄν near the beginning of a long structure, but the "fourth class conditional" is an arbitrary category used in grammars to facilitate discussion. The boundaries between prototype "fourth class conditional" and other hypothetical constructions are fuzzy.

In regard to Pl.AP 31a, Cooper states that ἄν is often placed early in its clause and has the ability to extend its force over large structures. I assume this would also apply to τάχ' ἄν. I find no separate treatment for τάχ' ἄν in Cooper. He also talks about the repetition of ἄν as a means of "hammering home" the idea expressed by the initial ἄν. So we have two facts about ἄν, it can render conditional/hypothetical a long complex structure and it can be repeated to make its presence known along the way through that same structure.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:That is a long sentence and the syntax is complex. I don't see any infinitive on the first line, I assume you are referring to γενέσθαι at the end of line 2. If we take τὸ on line one with γενέσθαι, then perhaps everything in between could be considered part of the infinitive complex. If we read the opening Περὶ πολλοῦ ἂν ποιησαίμην as an apodosis, then the protasis needs to be found somewhere prior to εὖ γὰρ οἶδ' ὅτι at the beginning of line four.

Your suggestion that infinitive is “essentially functioning as the protasis” sounds right to me, however the syntax structure between τὸ and the infinitive isn’t obvious. δικαστὰς περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος looks like a complex adjectival constituent limiting ὑμᾶς. But the placement of ἐμοὶ makes me wonder if this right. τοιούτους could be joined with δικαστὰς which might require a different analysis. I am somewhat undecided about the syntax analysis.

It is rather complex syntax of the parts dependent on the articular infinitive. I don't knowexactly how to parse it either.

[1]...to have you so disposed towards me in judging this case as you would be to yourselves [W.R.M. Lamb (1930)]vs.[2]...if you, the jurymen in this case, judged me as you would judge yourselves [Caroline L. Falkner (2001)]vs.[3]...if in this case you are the same sort of judges towards me as you would be towards yourselves [S. C. Todd (2000)]

[3] is a nice rephrasing of [1], but [2] strips it down to its bare-bones.

On the question is τάχ' ἄν completely isolated from the syntax of the following clause, I am not sure what complete isolation would look like. I don't consider initial adverbs completely isolated, any more than I would consider a genitive absolute isolated. If τάχ' ἄν marks the conditional/hypothetical nature of the following structure then its absence will be felt and thus it isn't really isolated. Some folks using some variant of the early-Chomsky framework might claim we have a complete sentence or clause without τάχ' ἄν but I don't hang out with folks who say those sorts of things. We may not have a perfect example (prototype) of a "fourth class conditional" with τάχ' ἄν near the beginning of a long structure, but the "fourth class conditional" is an arbitrary category used in grammars to facilitate discussion. The boundaries between prototype "fourth class conditional" and other hypothetical constructions are fuzzy.

I agree that such a narrow category cannot accommodate the various hypothetical constructions we find.

This is a fascinating discussion, Stirling. Thanks for keeping it alive.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:In regard to Pl.AP 31a, Cooper states that ἄν is often placed early in its clause and has the ability to extend its force over large structures. I assume this would also apply to τάχ' ἄν. I find no separate treatment for τάχ' ἄν in Cooper. He also talks about the repetition of ἄν as a means of "hammering home" the idea expressed by the initial ἄν. So we have two facts about ἄν, it can render conditional/hypothetical a long complex structure and it can be repeated to make its presence known along the way through that same structure.

Thank you for keeping the discussion going,

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Thanks for writing Cooper's explanation of such repetition, Stirling. I remember asking about thisquote a few years ago. This explanation is the most appealing.

NateD26 wrote:It is rather complex syntax of the parts dependent on the articular infinitive. I don't knowexactly how to parse it either.

[1]...to have you so disposed towards me in judging this case as you would be to yourselves [W.R.M. Lamb (1930)]vs.[2]...if you, the jurymen in this case, judged me as you would judge yourselves [Caroline L. Falkner (2001)]vs.[3]...if in this case you are the same sort of judges towards me as you would be towards yourselves [S. C. Todd (2000)]

[3] is a nice rephrasing of [1], but [2] strips it down to its bare-bones.

Yet another translation: I would be very grateful, gentlemen, if you would behave towards me in this matter as you would to yourselves if you had suffered the same things. I know well that if you have the same opinion towards others as you have towards yourselves not one of you would fail to be vexed at these happenings – Jo Willmott

Thank you Nate,

I identified my main problem with the first three lines, difficulty sorting out all the pronouns and other ambiguous elements.

If τοιούτους is answered by οἷοίπερ then the syntax of infinitive clause might be:

just another stab at it, I noticed after posting how close my parsing was to yours. I read yours two days ago but not since and have revised mine a dozen time since then. I really had to do a lot of review of syntax to get over Lysias obtuse style.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:Yet another translation:I would be very grateful, gentlemen, if you would behave towards me in this matter as you would to yourselves if you had suffered the same things. I know well that if you have the same opinion towards others as you have towards yourselves not one of you would fail to be vexed at these happenings– Jo Willmott

Thank you Nate,

I identified my main problem with the first three lines, difficulty sorting out all the pronouns and other ambiguous elements.

If τοιούτους is answered by οἷοίπερ then the syntax of infinitive clause might be:

just another stab at it, I noticed after posting how close my parsing was to yours. I read yours two days ago but not since and have revised mine a dozen time since then. I really had to do a lot of review of syntax to get over Lysias obtuse style.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

I like your reading of you, the judges of this case, as the subject of the infinitive; definitely falls in line with the word order.

But if any soldier from the army should tear you by violence from this body, then for his wickedness may he be wickedly cast out of his country and get no burial, but be severed at the root with all his race, just as I shear this lock. – R. C. Jebb Perseus modernization

protasis Εἰ τις ... σ' ἀποσπάσειε apodosis ἐκπέσοι

I suspect there may be formal elements here that indicated a curse text.

But if any soldier from the army should tear you by violence from this body, then for his wickedness may he be wickedly cast out of his country and get no burial, but be severed at the root with all his race, just as I shear this lock. – R. C. Jebb Perseus modernization

protasis Εἰ τις ... σ' ἀποσπάσειε apodosis ἐκπέσοι

I suspect there may be formal elements here that indicated a curse text.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Hi, Stirling. Great find!

It seems to be an example of optative without ἂν in main clauses, the optative of wish.

But if any soldier from the army should tear you by violence from this body, then for his wickedness may he be wickedly cast out of his country and get no burial, but be severed at the root with all his race, just as I shear this lock. – R. C. Jebb Perseus modernization

protasis Εἰ τις ... σ' ἀποσπάσειε apodosis ἐκπέσοι

I suspect there may be formal elements here that indicated a curse text.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Hi, Stirling. Great find!

It seems to be an example of optative without ἂν in main clauses, the optative of wish.

Thank you Nate,

G. Cooper (v.3 2:54.11.0.C, p. 2444) claims a wish optative is sometimes used as an apodosis in a fourth class conditional where it is understood as a curse. He cites E.IT 750 as an example. Here the protasis* is presented by one voice as a question and the apodosis** in another voice as an answer. The curse here is self referencing in answer to an oath.

A second conditional uses a participle in the protasis τί δὲ σύ, μὴ σώσασά με; answered by an optative θείην in the apodosis.

G. Cooper (v.3 2:54.11.0.C, p. 2444) claims a wish optative is sometimes used as an apodosis in a fourth class conditional where it is understood as a curse. He cites E.IT 750 as an example. Here the protasis* is presented by one voice as a question and the apodosis** in another voice as an answer. The curse here is self referencing in answer to an oath.

Does the content of the oath/wish have to be in a negative tone or there are examples where it's positive?

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:One minor issue, not certain about the referent of τοισίδ'. Is it the substance of the oath ?

τίν' οὖν ἐπόμνυς τοισίδ' ὅρκιον θεῶν;

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Interesting that τοισίδ' actually refers backwards to the previous sentence, rather than to a followingstatement as usual. It does seem to function as indirect object of ὅρκιον.

I was wondering why it was necessary in the second answer in form of an oath to includetwo words for foot. Apparently it's a common phrase in Euripides.

G. Cooper (v.3 2:54.11.0.C, p. 2444) claims a wish optative is sometimes used as an apodosis in a fourth class conditional where it is understood as a curse. He cites E.IT 750 as an example. Here the protasis* is presented by one voice as a question and the apodosis** in another voice as an answer. The curse here is self referencing in answer to an oath.

Does the content of the oath/wish have to be in a negative tone or there are examples where it's positive?

Well, not always but curses are indeed included under this category. (Smyth 1814b)

H. W. Smyth trans. Eteocles[550] If only they would get from the gods what they wish for, because of those unholy boasts of theirs, then surely they would perish in utter ruin and misery.

protasis εἰ ... τύχοιεν

apodosis τἂν ... ὀλοίατο

future optative ὀλοίατο

C. Stirling Bartholomew

What is the reason of using future optative here? I've read in Smyth that fut. opt. inconditional sentences is suspicious but I cannot find the section at the moment.Future optative was only used in indirect discourse to represent future indicative. (Smyth 1862)

H. W. Smyth trans. Eteocles[550] If only they would get from the gods what they wish for, because of those unholy boasts of theirs, then surely they would perish in utter ruin and misery.

protasis εἰ ... τύχοιεν

apodosis τἂν ... ὀλοίατο

future optative ὀλοίατο

What is the reason of using future optative here? I've read in Smyth that fut. opt. inconditional sentences is suspicious but I cannot find the section at the moment.Future optative was only used in indirect discourse to represent future indicative. (Smyth 1862)

Nate,

Future optative appears to be a strange thing. This isn't indirect discourse, it is dialogue. No one is being quoted. Cooper says that the future optative "shows the natural temporal sphere of the realization of a wish." (v3 2:54.11.0.B p2444). This a bit troublesome since there isn't supposed to be any temporal element in the non-indicitive moods, according to the present terminology non-indicitive finite verbs are "aspect only." And to make things worse, the future isn't considered an aspect by the most vocal aspectologists. So what is a future optative? Anyone want to venture out into unknown territory?

Future optative appears to be a strange thing. This isn't indirect discourse, it is dialogue. No one is being quoted. Cooper says that the future optative "shows the natural temporal sphere of the realization of a wish." (v3 2:54.11.0.B p2444). This a bit troublesome since there isn't supposed to be any temporal element in the non-indicitive moods, according to the present terminology non-indicitive finite verbs are "aspect only." And to make things worse, the future isn't considered an aspect by the most vocal aspectologists. So what is a future optative? Anyone want to venture out into unknown territory?

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Interesting. Smyth does state in the section I quoted in my last post that the future optative in indirectdiscourse (after secondary tenses) retains its tense as it stands for the indicative. So a future optativeafter an aor. ind. verb of saying/thinking would mean that relative to the ind., it occurred afterwards.

I have a question regarding the morphology of this future optative. ὄλλυμι is the present ind. act., fromὀλ-νυ-μι. The pres. ind. mid. is ὄλλυμαι The future ind. mid. is ὀλοῦμαι (ὀλέ-(σ)-ο-μαι). (LSJ)

Where did the alpha come from? 3rd pl. supposed to be ὀλέ-(σ)-οι-ντ-ο » ὄλοιντο (recessive accent for some reason) and Perseus does find it to be the fut. opt. mid. 3rd pl. as well.

The morpholigcal search also found it to be aor. opt. mid. but in the Epic and Ionic dialect.Again, 2nd aorist mid. according to Smyth is -ωλόμην with part. ὀλόμενος.2nd aor. opt. mid. 3rd pl. then would be ὄλοιντο as above.

The morpholigcal search also found it to be aor. opt. mid. but in the Epic and Ionic dialect.Again, 2nd aorist mid. according to Smyth is -ωλόμην with part. ὀλόμενος.2nd aor. opt. mid. 3rd pl. then would be ὄλοιντο as above.

Yes, epic forms are common in tragedy. Homer often has -οίατο for -οιντο. (I think because the nu was syllabic in PIE, so it can have different reflexes in different environments.) ὀλοίατο here is definitely aorist optative, not future.

The morpholigcal search also found it to be aor. opt. mid. but in the Epic and Ionic dialect.Again, 2nd aorist mid. according to Smyth is -ωλόμην with part. ὀλόμενος.2nd aor. opt. mid. 3rd pl. then would be ὄλοιντο as above.

Yes, epic forms are common in tragedy. Homer often has -οίατο for -οιντο. (I think because the nu was syllabic in PIE, so it can have different reflexes in different environments.) ὀλοίατο here is definitely aorist optative, not future.

Thanks, Damoetas. I wasn't aware of this ending. Smyth notes in 465f it was still being used in prose until 400B.C.

H. W. Smyth trans. Eteocles[550] If only they would get from the gods what they wish for, because of those unholy boasts of theirs, then surely they would perish in utter ruin and misery.

This commentary suggests reading line 551 after 552, that if they got from the gods what they wished for us, they would utterly perish with (dative) their unholy boasting. It seems to strengthen the apodosis better, rendering their boasting useless should the gods will it.

I've found this sentence in p.43 of Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb (1890).Smyth calls this construction -- εἰ + fut.ind. » fut.ind. -- the emotional future condition (§2328).Here it is indirect speech dependent on secondary tense verb so both protasis and apodosis are turned into fut.opt., but we often find the original ind. instead.

NateD26 wrote:I've found this sentence in p.43 of Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb (1890).Smyth calls this construction -- εἰ + fut.ind. » fut.ind. -- the emotional future condition (§2328).Here it is indirect speech dependent on secondary tense verb so both protasis and apodosis are turned into fut.opt., but we often find the original ind. instead.

NateD26 wrote:I've found this sentence in p.43 of Syntax of the moods and tenses of the Greek verb (1890).Smyth calls this construction -- εἰ + fut.ind. » fut.ind. -- the emotional future condition (§2328).Here it is indirect speech dependent on secondary tense verb so both protasis and apodosis are turned into fut.opt., but we often find the original ind. instead.

Another rather complex example from Plato's Apology 29b-c with future optative in protasis (ἂν isin parenthesis and is ignored by most translations) but future indicative intact in the apodosis. It'sdependent on secondary tense saying verb ἔφη (or I guess you could also say the participle λέγων stands for the imperfect). The passage deals with the possible, already expected outcome of his trial, a death sentence, and how he feels about it. I'll add my humble attempt at translating it:

So, in preference to evils which I know are bad, that which I do not know whether it even happens to be good I neither fear nor flee. Consequently (I shall not cease from my conduct) even if you acquit me now because you disbelieve Anytus, who said that either I shouldn't have come here in the first place, or that once I did, it wouldn't be possible to avoid killing me, by telling you that if I survived now, all your children would be utterly corrupted in pursuing Socrates' teaching,...

* translated as καί, even, because οὐ is repeated in οὐ μὴ παύσωμαι (29d) which was supposed to come here but was interrupted by this long parenthesis.

But their is no command to teach, and the agent of instruction is only vaguely inferred placed completely in the discourse background by the passive participle διδαχθεὶς. Smyth's rendering attracts too much attention to the notion of agency.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I am tempted to read the second part of the second line below as a conditional statement even though the syntax isn't what you would probably find in a grammar under conditional statements.

But their is no command to teach, and the agent of instruction is only vaguely inferred placed completely in the discourse background by the passive participle διδαχθεὶς. Smyth's rendering attracts too much attention to the notion of agency.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Interesting. I know some Greek passive constructions are often rendered into active ones in English but I'm not sure whether this is one of them.

This commentary by T.W. Peile (1844) suggests two possible readings (placing in both the interrogativemark at the end of the line) that I don't quite understand. (It's section/line 524 in this edition.)Might be of interest to you and others.

C. S. Bartholomew wrote:I am tempted to read the second part of the second line below as a conditional statement even though the syntax isn't what you would probably find in a grammar under conditional statements.

But their is no command to teach, and the agent of instruction is only vaguely inferred placed completely in the discourse background by the passive participle διδαχθεὶς. Smyth's rendering attracts too much attention to the notion of agency.

C. Stirling Bartholomew

Interesting. I know some Greek passive constructions are often rendered into active ones in English but I'm not sure whether this is one of them.

This commentary by T.W. Peile (1844) suggests two possible readings (placing in both the interrogativemark at the end of the line) that I don't quite understand. (It's section/line 524 in this edition.)Might be of interest to you and others.

Nate,

The chorus leader has propounded a riddle and the response is in two parts, an interrogative πῶς δή; "How so?" and a statement with a condition "if [I am] instructed I will understand ." The translation could put these together as "How will I understand without at teacher?" see Acts and the Ethiopian ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην ἐὰν μή τις ὁδηγήσει με;

Never the less, the surface structure doesn't contain all of these elements and editors placed a stop after πῶς δή;. That which is inferred but not present explicitly is made explicit in the translation. This is unavoidable in Attic Tragedy.